Bennett v. Chadwick, 2025 ONSC 3603
The Setup
Picture this: your client calls, frustrated. They’ve enjoyed convenient access across their neighbour’s driveway to their cottage property for years. Now there’s a fence blocking their route, and they can’t get their vehicle through. Surely, they have a right-of-way, don’t they?
The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Bennett v. Chadwick illustrates why assumptions about long-standing informal arrangements can lead to expensive litigation and disappointing results.
The Facts
This dispute arose within Cressview Lakes Corporation, a non-profit corporation that holds 19 cottage lots. The Bennetts owned shares giving them exclusive possession of Lots 45, 51, and 52. The problem? Lot 52 could only be accessed by water when the subdivision was created in 1960.
To remedy this, the corporation’s shareholders passed a unanimous resolution in 1961 granting the owner of Lot 52 “access to Lot 52 by using the present roadway over Lot 45 and Lot 46.” The resolution specifically identified the access point as being on Lot 45. A handwritten agreement from 1974 confirmed a right-of-way across Lot 46, though it didn’t specify the precise location.
Fast forward to 2021. Kimberly Chadwick purchased shares for Lot 46 and eventually erected a fence along her property line. The Bennetts claimed this fence blocked their right-of-way, but here’s the twist: they weren’t claiming the 1961 right-of-way that started on Lot 45. Instead, they argued they had acquired rights to use Chadwick’s driveway directly from a private road known as Indian Trail, accessing the property entirely through Lot 46.
The Problem: More Than Just Access
The court found that the Bennetts had been storing their property on Lot 46, using the right-of-way for purposes beyond simple passage. Corporate minutes from 2021 confirmed this had been a source of friction with the previous owner of Lot 46. When Chadwick asked the Bennetts to remove their stored items, they refused. The fence followed.
Chadwick conceded she had initially given permission for the Bennetts to use her driveway. However, she revoked that permission when they wouldn’t stop storing property on her lot.
The Decision
Justice Edwards dismissed the application entirely. The court made several key findings:
- The original right-of-way was clearly documented: The 1961 resolution explicitly stated the access point was on Lot 45, not Lot 46.
- No evidence of a changed access point: The Bennetts produced no admissible evidence that the access point had legally moved from Lot 45 to Lot 46. Their reliance on an unsworn statement from the previous Lot 46 owner was given no weight.
- Permission, not a right: What the Bennetts enjoyed over Chadwick’s driveway was a revocable license, not an easement. Once they abused that privilege by storing property, it was properly revoked.
- Access remained available: The court found the original right-of-way (starting on Lot 45) remained passable, even by pickup truck, despite the Bennetts’ claims it was overgrown and unsafe.
Most damning was the court’s observation: “Ultimately the Applicants are the authors of their own misfortune. Had they been good neighbours and not used the right-of-way for an improper purpose this litigation would not have been necessary.”
Lessons for Transactional Lawyers
This case offers several important reminders when reviewing or drafting documents affecting property rights:
- Precision is paramount. The 1974 agreement simply stated a right-of-way would be granted “across lot 46 as access to lot 52.” It didn’t specify where. The saving grace for the defendants was the 1961 corporate resolution that did identify the access point on Lot 45. Always ensure easement agreements include plans, surveys, or precise metes and bounds descriptions.
- Corporate records matter. In share corporations granting exclusive possession, corporate minutes can create binding property rights. Review historical minutes carefully during due diligence.
- Distinguish rights from permissions. Just because a client has used a particular route for years doesn’t mean they have a legal right to it. Long-standing neighborly accommodation can evaporate quickly when relationships sour.
- Scope of easements is limited. Rights-of-way are for passage, not storage. Advise clients that using easement areas for purposes beyond their grant can jeopardize the entire right.
- Document everything in writing. Had the parties reduced any alleged change in the access point to a written agreement with proper corporate authorization, this litigation might have been avoided.
The Bottom Line
The Bennetts sought the convenience of using their neighbour’s driveway rather than the access route they were actually entitled to use. Their unwillingness to be “good neighbours” cost them not only that convenience but also the legal fees of failed litigation.
For transactional lawyers, this case underscores the importance of clear, precise documentation of property rights. A few extra minutes ensuring proper legal descriptions and scope limitations in your documents can save clients from becoming the next cautionary tale in real estate litigation.
